U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned the vote of millions of California voters who voted to uphold traditional marriage. After his decision it was learned that Judge Vaughn was a homosexual involved in a homosexual relationship. An appeals court ruled that Judge Vaughn “was not obligated to step away from the case because he was in a long term same-sex relationship.”
“The panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge James Ware, who refused to overturn Walker’s ruling on the grounds he failed to disclose his relationship, based the ruling on sound law and logic.”
I wonder what the response would be if a judge who was a member of the KKK had ruled that certain actions by a KKK group did not violate the rights of blacks and Jews.
Now let’s see how the radicalized courts respond to the legal decision of Judge Robert Jones? Here’s a report from Ben Johnson at LifeSiteNews:
“[Judge Robert Jones] has ruled that ‘no fundamental rights are burdened’ by Nevada’s constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman – a ruling that has led liberals and homosexual activists to ridicule his Mormon faith.
“Eight homosexual couples sought to overturn the marriage protection measure, which was passed by two-thirds of Nevada voters just 10 years ago. The plaintiffs, who could not marry in the state or have their ‘marriages’ recognized by the state, claimed they bore ‘the stigma of exclusion and of being branded by the government as inferior.’”
The state’s interest in the issue of marriage is an old one. The Supreme Court ruled in the 19th century on polygamy, stating that polygamy “is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.”1 A similar decision was made in Davis v. Beason (1890).
Judge Jones argued that homosexuals are not discriminated against when the law prohibits people of the same sex from marrying one another. The legal prohibition is applied equally to all people.
Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action offers a helpful analogy on the issue:
“There are common-sense restrictions that are placed on the institution of marriage that we all must adhere to. For instance, an adult cannot marry a minor child; a person cannot marry somebody who is too close to them from a familial standpoint; people cannot marry their house plant.”
In another bit of sane judicial news, a judge has blocked a California law “that would require all counselors dealing with minors to affirm homosexuality and all its variations under all circumstances, regardless of the requests of the minor or his or her parents.”
There’s hope yet for the world, even though we know that this decision isn’t by any means the final word on this issue. Liberals never give up.
- The United States v. Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1890). [↩]